If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You haven't posted anything yet. To participate in our discussions, you can create a new thread of reply to existing ones. We'd love to hear from you and value your WW2 knowledge.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Well they sank both so I suppose the answer is yes. Both were killed by air power ( one directly and one indirectly) and Germany's inability to produce an operational Carrier was the problem.

Is this fact-Bismarck was damage by an ww1 British fighter.The plane was too slow for the Bismarck mordern fast powerful guns, got through there deffence and manage to hit Bismarcks rudder, and the Bismarck was a sitting duck- maybe it was a fluke that it was distroyed Bismarck.
But i dont know nothing about Tirpitz.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Originally Posted by aly j

Is this fact-Bismarck was damage by an ww1 British fighter.The plane was too slow for the Bismarck mordern fast powerful guns, got through there deffence and manage to hit Bismarcks rudder, and the Bismarck was a sitting duck- maybe it was a fluke that it was distroyed Bismarck.
But i dont know nothing about Tirpitz.

The Swordfish was a dedicated naval attack/recon aircraft not a fighter, yes it was slow and this made it vulnerable to enemy triple A but the Fleet Air Arm was created with very limited objectives and it was the lack of surface ships after Hitler had over-run much of Europe and the French Fleet was lost to the Allied cause which forced it in to a much more prominent role.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

It's also worth pointing out that Bismarck may have been mobility-killed by a Swordfish, but it was sunk by King George V and Rodney in short order - and neither suffered significant damage in the process. Both ships did more damage to themselves than Bismarck did to them - Rodney due to blast from it's own guns, King George V due to problems with the shell handling mechanism breaking down.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Hardly - compare it to the numbers for an Iowa class, which was still insufficient to totally protect against Kamikazes, and then remember that the US battleship had vastly superior fire-control systems along with proximity fused 5" shells.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Originally Posted by pdf27

Hardly - compare it to the numbers for an Iowa class, which was still insufficient to totally protect against Kamikazes, and then remember that the US battleship had vastly superior fire-control systems along with proximity fused 5" shells.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Flame,

I had also read this about the KM's lack of AA, especially as most Battleships of this era could use their secondary guns as AA, I don't think Bismark could. Compare this with Prince of Wales 16x 5.25, 48 x 2pdr, 1 x 40mm (?) and 8 x 20mm. (didn't help her) Later it was to increase massively, USS New Jersey had 80 x 40mm and 49 x 20mm. But the best protection was fighters from a carrier.

PDF,

Agreed but it was a significant mobility loss, at only 7 or 8 knots and her fire affected by the list, she was a sitting duck. It only took 30 minutes to put all her guns out of action.

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

Agreed but it was a significant mobility loss, at only 7 or 8 knots and her fire affected by the list, she was a sitting duck. It only took 30 minutes to put all her guns out of action.

Agreed that Bismarck was at a very significant disadvantage, but nonetheless if it was equally as good as either of the attacking ships it should at least have done some damage to them. It would have been a less stable gun platform, and had slightly less chance of dodging incoming salvos, but the relative movement between the two is identical and the Bismarck's main armament was initially undamaged. Instead it did virtually no damage and was reduced to a burning wreck in minutes.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz

First, the Swordfish was NOT a WW1 aircraft, it was designed in the early 1930s. As a torpedo bomber, it had to be able to fly slow. Drop a torpedo too fast or from too high, it will break apart (torpedoes are very sensitive machines).
The frame and fabric design had another advantage: Similar to the Hurricane, the aircraft could take a huge amount of punishment and could be repaired quite fast.
Low take off and landing speeds also make good carrier aircraft, where the length of the "runway"" is limited.